Noel v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
341 F.3d 1148 · 2003
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 291 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005), Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP (2010)
38 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Younger v. Harris · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Allen v. McCurry · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 291 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court. If, on the other hand, a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly illegal act or omission by an adverse party, Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he premise for the operation of the “inextricably intertwined” test ... is that the federal plaintiff is seeking to bring a forbidden de facto appeal. The federal suit is not a forbidden appeal because it is “inextricably intertwined” with something. Rather, it is simply a forbidden de facto appeal. Only when there is already a de facto appeal in federal court does the “inextricably intertwined” test come into play: Once a federal plaintiff seeks to bring a forbidden de facto appeal, as in Feldman, the federal plaintiff may not seek to litigate an issue that is “inextricably intertwined” with the state judicial decision from which the forbidden de facto appeal is brought.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.